2017 (2) TMI 387 - AT - Service Tax

Charitable institution - Business Auxiliary services - commission agency - Held that - The intention of the taxing entry as appeared in law prior to 30.04.2006 and as suggested by the ld. Counsel was that commercial concerns were brought to the ambit of tax under the taxing entry BAS. Appellant came to existence in terms of a trust deed as charitable institution without being a commercial concern. It is noticed that when law was amended bringing any person including a commercial concern to the ambit of tax w.e.f. 01.05.2006, appellant has paid service tax from 01.05.2006. The appellant was not a commercial concern before 30.04.2006 under the law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Interpretation of service tax liability for a charitable institution providing Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) before and after a specific legislative amendment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Issue of Tax Liability for Charitable Institution Providing BAS:
The appellant, a charitable institution, was subjected to service tax by the adjudicating authority for providing BAS. The appellant argued that as a charitable institution, it should not be liable for service tax as per Circular No. 86/4/2006-ST dated 01.11.2006. The circular highlighted that institutions primarily engaged in non-profit activities like education should not be considered commercial concerns subject to service tax. The appellant contended that its charitable activities exempted it from service tax liability.

2. Legislative Amendment and Taxing Entry Changes:
The taxing entry under section 65 (105) zzb underwent an amendment effective from 01.05.2006, expanding the scope of service tax liability to any person providing BAS. Prior to this amendment, the taxing entry specifically targeted commercial concerns offering BAS services. The appellant argued that as a non-commercial concern engaged in charitable activities, it should not have been liable for service tax before the legislative change.

3. Judicial Interpretation and Decision:
The Tribunal analyzed the legislative intent behind the taxing entry and the appellant's status as a charitable institution. It noted that the appellant was not a commercial concern before 30.04.2006 and only started paying service tax from 01.05.2006, post the legislative amendment. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant, being a charitable institution, should not have been held liable for service tax before the legislative change. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.

4. Outcome of the Appeal:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the appellant's charitable status exempted it from service tax liability before the legislative amendment. The Commissioner's agreement with the Tribunal's reasoning further supported the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The judgment clarified that the appellant's tax liability only commenced post the legislative amendment, recognizing its charitable nature and exempting it from service tax before the specified date.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of considering the nature of the entity and the legislative amendments while determining service tax liability for charitable institutions providing BAS services.